Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.430, 0.174

0.406

time_point

1st

2nd

0.029

0.133

-0.233, 0.290

0.830

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.179

0.192

-0.198, 0.556

0.354

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.380

-0.825, 0.665

0.833

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.188

0.244

-0.666, 0.290

0.441

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.03

0.353

0.339, 1.72

0.004

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.503

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.712

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.733

0.397

-0.044, 1.51

0.066

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.07

0.575

-0.062, 2.19

0.066

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.183

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.259

-0.476, 0.540

0.902

time_point

1st

2nd

0.007

0.173

-0.333, 0.347

0.968

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.334

0.251

-0.158, 0.826

0.184

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.290

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.410

-0.459, 1.15

0.402

time_point

1st

2nd

0.447

0.254

-0.050, 0.944

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.431

0.368

-0.290, 1.15

0.243

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.545, 0.913

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.383

0.207

-0.023, 0.788

0.066

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.297

0.300

-0.291, 0.886

0.323

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.214

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.303

-0.986, 0.202

0.196

time_point

1st

2nd

0.052

0.208

-0.356, 0.460

0.804

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.840

0.302

0.249, 1.43

0.006

Pseudo R square

0.016

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.882

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.247

-3.73, 1.16

0.302

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.25

0.631

-2.48, -0.010

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.286

0.916

-2.08, 1.51

0.755

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.578

-1.14, 1.12

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.424

0.339

-0.240, 1.09

0.212

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.186

0.492

-0.778, 1.15

0.705

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.515

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.729

-0.588, 2.27

0.250

time_point

1st

2nd

0.470

0.411

-0.336, 1.28

0.255

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.253

0.596

-0.916, 1.42

0.672

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.641

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.907

-0.409, 3.15

0.132

time_point

1st

2nd

1.18

0.487

0.230, 2.14

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.118

0.706

-1.27, 1.50

0.867

Pseudo R square

0.017

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.336

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.475

-0.579, 1.28

0.459

time_point

1st

2nd

0.447

0.257

-0.056, 0.951

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.067

0.372

-0.797, 0.663

0.857

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.544

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.769

-1.51, 1.51

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.688

0.422

-0.139, 1.51

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.447

0.612

-0.752, 1.65

0.465

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.631

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.892

-1.43, 2.07

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

1.12

0.470

0.203, 2.04

0.018

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.214

0.682

-1.55, 1.12

0.754

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.388

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.549

-0.316, 1.84

0.167

time_point

1st

2nd

0.691

0.341

0.022, 1.36

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.497

0.494

-0.471, 1.47

0.315

Pseudo R square

0.024

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.353

0.052, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.057

0.203

-0.455, 0.340

0.777

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.420

0.294

-0.156, 0.997

0.154

Pseudo R square

0.029

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.286

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.404

-0.400, 1.18

0.333

time_point

1st

2nd

0.328

0.228

-0.119, 0.774

0.152

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.334

0.330

-0.314, 0.981

0.313

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.416

-0.119, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.330

0.217

-0.096, 0.755

0.131

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.183

0.315

-0.434, 0.800

0.562

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.540

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.764

-0.409, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.652

0.380

-0.093, 1.40

0.088

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.531

0.552

-0.551, 1.61

0.338

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.819

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.158

-3.49, 1.05

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.717

0.608

-1.91, 0.475

0.240

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.42

0.882

-3.15, 0.304

0.108

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.445

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.629

-0.225, 2.24

0.110

time_point

1st

2nd

0.259

0.335

-0.398, 0.917

0.440

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.688

0.487

-0.265, 1.64

0.159

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.361

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.511

0.007, 2.01

0.049

time_point

1st

2nd

0.550

0.294

-0.026, 1.13

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.295

0.426

-0.540, 1.13

0.489

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.767

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.085

-0.111, 4.14

0.064

time_point

1st

2nd

0.805

0.571

-0.315, 1.92

0.160

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.993

0.829

-0.632, 2.62

0.233

Pseudo R square

0.026

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.142

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.201

-0.467, 0.323

0.721

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.140

0.158

-0.449, 0.169

0.376

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.176

0.228

-0.271, 0.623

0.441

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.309

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.436

-0.135, 1.58

0.100

time_point

1st

2nd

0.663

0.305

0.066, 1.26

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.686

0.441

-1.55, 0.179

0.122

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.377

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.534

-0.582, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.614

0.326

-0.025, 1.25

0.061

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.249

0.473

-0.678, 1.18

0.600

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.617

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.873

-0.526, 2.89

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.27

0.546

0.204, 2.35

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.421

0.792

-1.97, 1.13

0.595

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.404

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.571

-0.591, 1.65

0.356

time_point

1st

2nd

0.788

0.325

0.150, 1.43

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.155

0.472

-0.769, 1.08

0.743

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.223

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.315

-0.626, 0.610

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.206

0.232

-0.248, 0.660

0.375

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.492

0.335

-0.165, 1.15

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.390

-0.852, 0.676

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.411

0.269

-0.938, 0.117

0.129

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.449

0.390

-1.21, 0.315

0.250

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.324

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.458

-0.675, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.298

0.247

-0.782, 0.186

0.229

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.722

0.358

-1.42, -0.020

0.045

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.842

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.449

0.255

-0.948, 0.050

0.079

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.395

0.369

-1.12, 0.329

0.286

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.474

-0.520, 1.34

0.390

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.238

0.254

-0.736, 0.261

0.351

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.714

0.369

-1.44, 0.009

0.054

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.935

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.322

-2.04, 3.14

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.00

0.640

-2.26, 0.253

0.119

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.76

0.930

-3.59, 0.058

0.059

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(443) = 29.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(443) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(443) = 0.22, p = 0.830; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(443) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(443) = 66.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(443) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.29], t(443) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.34, 1.72], t(443) = 2.92, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.11, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(443) = 58.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(443) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.51], t(443) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.87e-03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.19], t(443) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(443) = 63.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(443) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.35], t(443) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 3.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83], t(443) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(443) = 59.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(443) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.94], t(443) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.15], t(443) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(443) = 49.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(443) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79], t(443) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.82e-03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89], t(443) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(443) = 46.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(443) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.46], t(443) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.25, 1.43], t(443) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(443) = 35.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(443) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-2.48, -9.80e-03], t(443) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -9.98e-04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.51], t(443) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(443) = 53.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(443) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.09], t(443) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.15], t(443) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(443) = 47.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(443) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.28], t(443) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.42], t(443) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(443) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(443) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.23, 2.14], t(443) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.50], t(443) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(443) = 31.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(443) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95], t(443) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.66], t(443) = -0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(443) = 27.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.34e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(443) = -5.64e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 5.66e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.51], t(443) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.65], t(443) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(443) = 34.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(443) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [0.20, 2.04], t(443) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.12], t(443) = -0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(443) = 41.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(443) = 1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [0.02, 1.36], t(443) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [5.03e-03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.47], t(443) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(443) = 52.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(443) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.34], t(443) = -0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.00], t(443) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(443) = 58.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(443) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.77], t(443) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.98], t(443) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(443) = 42.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(443) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.75], t(443) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.80], t(443) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(443) = 54.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(443) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.40], t(443) = 1.71, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.61], t(443) = 0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(443) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(443) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.47], t(443) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-3.15, 0.30], t(443) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(443) = 31.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.24], t(443) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.92], t(443) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.64], t(443) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(443) = 42.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [7.29e-03, 2.01], t(443) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.79e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.13], t(443) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-6.39e-03, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.13], t(443) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(443) = 38.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(443) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.92], t(443) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.62], t(443) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(443) = 89.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(443) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17], t(443) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.62], t(443) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(443) = 46.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(443) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.07, 1.26], t(443) = 2.18, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.18], t(443) = -1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(443) = 34.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(443) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.25], t(443) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-5.94e-03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.18], t(443) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(443) = 44.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.89], t(443) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [0.20, 2.35], t(443) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.13], t(443) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(443) = 46.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(443) = 0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [0.15, 1.43], t(443) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.08], t(443) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(443) = 64.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(443) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66], t(443) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.15], t(443) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(443) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(443) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.12], t(443) = -1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.31], t(443) = -1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(443) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.12], t(443) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.19], t(443) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.42, -0.02], t(443) = -2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.39, -5.45e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(443) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(443) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.05], t(443) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.33], t(443) = -1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(443) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(443) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.26], t(443) = -0.94, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.44, 9.15e-03], t(443) = -1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.46e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(443) = 31.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(443) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.25], t(443) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.59, 0.06], t(443) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 5.58e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,431.169

1,443.490

-712.584

1,425.169

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,434.699

1,459.341

-711.350

1,422.699

2.470

3

0.481

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,169.365

2,181.686

-1,081.683

2,163.365

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,163.370

2,188.012

-1,075.685

2,151.370

11.995

3

0.007

ras_confidence

null

3

2,696.182

2,708.503

-1,345.091

2,690.182

ras_confidence

random

6

2,679.903

2,704.545

-1,333.951

2,667.903

22.279

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,831.223

1,843.544

-912.611

1,825.223

ras_willingness

random

6

1,833.202

1,857.844

-910.601

1,821.202

4.021

3

0.259

ras_goal

null

3

2,228.846

2,241.167

-1,111.423

2,222.846

ras_goal

random

6

2,219.553

2,244.195

-1,103.776

2,207.553

15.293

3

0.002

ras_reliance

null

3

2,104.263

2,116.584

-1,049.132

2,098.263

ras_reliance

random

6

2,096.692

2,121.334

-1,042.346

2,084.692

13.571

3

0.004

ras_domination

null

3

1,991.715

2,004.036

-992.858

1,985.715

ras_domination

random

6

1,981.274

2,005.916

-984.637

1,969.274

16.441

3

0.001

symptom

null

3

3,154.097

3,166.418

-1,574.048

3,148.097

symptom

random

6

3,149.694

3,174.336

-1,568.847

3,137.694

10.403

3

0.015

slof_work

null

3

2,509.191

2,521.512

-1,251.596

2,503.191

slof_work

random

6

2,510.670

2,535.312

-1,249.335

2,498.670

4.521

3

0.210

slof_relationship

null

3

2,705.081

2,717.402

-1,349.541

2,699.081

slof_relationship

random

6

2,705.189

2,729.831

-1,346.594

2,693.189

5.892

3

0.117

satisfaction

null

3

2,892.917

2,905.238

-1,443.458

2,886.917

satisfaction

random

6

2,884.302

2,908.944

-1,436.151

2,872.302

14.615

3

0.002

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,305.342

2,317.663

-1,149.671

2,299.342

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,305.888

2,330.530

-1,146.944

2,293.888

5.454

3

0.141

mhc_social

null

3

2,747.273

2,759.594

-1,370.637

2,741.273

mhc_social

random

6

2,744.183

2,768.825

-1,366.092

2,732.183

9.090

3

0.028

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,865.890

2,878.211

-1,429.945

2,859.890

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,862.892

2,887.534

-1,425.446

2,850.892

8.998

3

0.029

resilisnce

null

3

2,495.413

2,507.734

-1,244.707

2,489.413

resilisnce

random

6

2,483.305

2,507.947

-1,235.653

2,471.305

18.108

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

2,065.299

2,077.620

-1,029.649

2,059.299

social_provision

random

6

2,060.838

2,085.480

-1,024.419

2,048.838

10.461

3

0.015

els_value_living

null

3

2,180.549

2,192.870

-1,087.275

2,174.549

els_value_living

random

6

2,175.184

2,199.826

-1,081.592

2,163.184

11.365

3

0.010

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,179.503

2,191.824

-1,086.752

2,173.503

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,174.584

2,199.226

-1,081.292

2,162.584

10.919

3

0.012

els

null

3

2,712.104

2,724.425

-1,353.052

2,706.104

els

random

6

2,703.638

2,728.280

-1,345.819

2,691.638

14.466

3

0.002

social_connect

null

3

3,105.338

3,117.660

-1,549.669

3,099.338

social_connect

random

6

3,096.417

3,121.059

-1,542.208

3,084.417

14.922

3

0.002

shs_agency

null

3

2,560.001

2,572.322

-1,277.000

2,554.001

shs_agency

random

6

2,553.807

2,578.450

-1,270.904

2,541.807

12.193

3

0.007

shs_pathway

null

3

2,402.528

2,414.849

-1,198.264

2,396.528

shs_pathway

random

6

2,392.455

2,417.097

-1,190.227

2,380.455

16.073

3

0.001

shs

null

3

3,048.940

3,061.261

-1,521.470

3,042.940

shs

random

6

3,038.955

3,063.597

-1,513.477

3,026.955

15.985

3

0.001

esteem

null

3

1,647.003

1,659.324

-820.501

1,641.003

esteem

random

6

1,652.161

1,676.803

-820.080

1,640.161

0.842

3

0.839

mlq_search

null

3

2,314.021

2,326.342

-1,154.010

2,308.021

mlq_search

random

6

2,314.143

2,338.785

-1,151.071

2,302.143

5.878

3

0.118

mlq_presence

null

3

2,457.502

2,469.823

-1,225.751

2,451.502

mlq_presence

random

6

2,452.612

2,477.254

-1,220.306

2,440.612

10.890

3

0.012

mlq

null

3

2,904.937

2,917.258

-1,449.468

2,898.937

mlq

random

6

2,901.916

2,926.559

-1,444.958

2,889.916

9.021

3

0.029

empower

null

3

2,497.732

2,510.053

-1,245.866

2,491.732

empower

random

6

2,489.470

2,514.112

-1,238.735

2,477.470

14.262

3

0.003

ismi_resistance

null

3

2,040.742

2,053.063

-1,017.371

2,034.742

ismi_resistance

random

6

2,037.353

2,061.995

-1,012.677

2,025.353

9.388

3

0.025

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,215.457

2,227.778

-1,104.729

2,209.457

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,209.500

2,234.142

-1,098.750

2,197.500

11.957

3

0.008

sss_affective

null

3

2,283.818

2,296.139

-1,138.909

2,277.818

sss_affective

random

6

2,273.281

2,297.923

-1,130.640

2,261.281

16.537

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,305.222

2,317.543

-1,149.611

2,299.222

sss_behavior

random

6

2,298.130

2,322.772

-1,143.065

2,286.130

13.092

3

0.004

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,308.801

2,321.122

-1,151.401

2,302.801

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,301.357

2,325.999

-1,144.678

2,289.357

13.445

3

0.004

sss

null

3

3,199.522

3,211.843

-1,596.761

3,193.522

sss

random

6

3,186.740

3,211.382

-1,587.370

3,174.740

18.782

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.406

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

105

3.23 ± 1.21

-0.029

94

3.28 ± 1.20

-0.209

0.767

-0.051

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.00

125

17.80 ± 3.00

0.833

0.045

recovery_stage_b

2nd

105

17.69 ± 2.90

0.105

94

18.64 ± 2.85

-0.471

0.020

-0.531

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.63

125

30.02 ± 5.63

0.637

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

105

30.42 ± 5.38

-0.252

94

31.82 ± 5.24

-0.619

0.064

-0.482

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.05

125

11.66 ± 2.05

0.902

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

105

11.63 ± 1.99

-0.005

94

12.00 ± 1.95

-0.267

0.191

-0.287

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.24

125

17.53 ± 3.24

0.402

-0.185

ras_goal

2nd

105

17.63 ± 3.12

-0.240

94

18.41 ± 3.06

-0.471

0.078

-0.416

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.121

ras_reliance

2nd

105

13.53 ± 2.81

-0.252

94

14.01 ± 2.74

-0.448

0.223

-0.317

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.39

125

9.56 ± 2.39

0.196

0.255

ras_domination

2nd

105

10.00 ± 2.33

-0.034

94

10.45 ± 2.29

-0.581

0.172

-0.292

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.86

125

30.21 ± 9.86

0.302

0.279

symptom

2nd

105

30.25 ± 9.36

0.270

94

28.67 ± 9.08

0.332

0.230

0.341

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.57

125

22.06 ± 4.57

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

105

22.49 ± 4.39

-0.171

94

22.67 ± 4.28

-0.245

0.772

-0.072

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.76

125

25.34 ± 5.76

0.250

-0.279

slof_relationship

2nd

105

24.97 ± 5.51

-0.156

94

26.07 ± 5.37

-0.240

0.158

-0.363

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.17

125

21.03 ± 7.17

0.132

-0.384

satisfaction

2nd

105

20.85 ± 6.84

-0.332

94

22.33 ± 6.65

-0.366

0.121

-0.417

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.75

125

11.00 ± 3.75

0.459

-0.187

mhc_emotional

2nd

105

11.10 ± 3.58

-0.238

94

11.38 ± 3.48

-0.202

0.570

-0.152

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.08

125

15.13 ± 6.08

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

105

15.82 ± 5.81

-0.223

94

16.26 ± 5.65

-0.368

0.583

-0.145

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.05

125

21.87 ± 7.05

0.720

-0.093

mhc_psychological

2nd

105

22.68 ± 6.72

-0.327

94

22.78 ± 6.52

-0.265

0.910

-0.031

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.34

125

16.94 ± 4.34

0.167

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

105

16.87 ± 4.18

-0.276

94

18.12 ± 4.10

-0.474

0.033

-0.502

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.79

125

13.91 ± 2.79

0.036

-0.500

social_provision

2nd

105

13.11 ± 2.68

0.039

94

14.27 ± 2.61

-0.244

0.002

-0.783

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.333

-0.235

els_value_living

2nd

105

17.09 ± 3.06

-0.196

94

17.81 ± 2.98

-0.397

0.091

-0.435

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.095

-0.438

els_life_fulfill

2nd

105

12.74 ± 3.13

-0.208

94

13.62 ± 3.04

-0.323

0.045

-0.554

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.04

125

30.26 ± 6.04

0.155

-0.391

els

2nd

105

29.82 ± 5.73

-0.235

94

31.44 ± 5.55

-0.425

0.044

-0.582

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.16

125

26.66 ± 9.16

0.295

0.273

social_connect

2nd

105

27.16 ± 8.72

0.161

94

24.52 ± 8.47

0.482

0.031

0.594

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.97

125

14.85 ± 4.97

0.110

-0.411

shs_agency

2nd

105

14.10 ± 4.74

-0.106

94

15.80 ± 4.61

-0.386

0.011

-0.691

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.04

125

16.34 ± 4.04

0.049

-0.468

shs_pathway

2nd

105

15.88 ± 3.87

-0.255

94

17.18 ± 3.77

-0.392

0.017

-0.605

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.58

125

31.18 ± 8.58

0.064

-0.482

shs

2nd

105

29.97 ± 8.17

-0.193

94

32.98 ± 7.94

-0.430

0.009

-0.720

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.59

125

12.73 ± 1.59

0.721

0.062

esteem

2nd

105

12.66 ± 1.57

0.120

94

12.76 ± 1.55

-0.031

0.639

-0.089

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.45

125

15.08 ± 3.45

0.100

-0.320

mlq_search

2nd

105

15.02 ± 3.36

-0.295

94

15.06 ± 3.31

0.010

0.942

-0.015

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.385

-0.194

mlq_presence

2nd

105

13.77 ± 4.06

-0.257

94

14.48 ± 3.97

-0.360

0.212

-0.298

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.90

125

28.70 ± 6.90

0.176

-0.295

mlq

2nd

105

28.79 ± 6.65

-0.318

94

29.55 ± 6.52

-0.213

0.415

-0.190

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.51

125

19.38 ± 4.51

0.356

-0.222

empower

2nd

105

19.64 ± 4.32

-0.331

94

20.32 ± 4.21

-0.396

0.260

-0.287

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.49

125

14.35 ± 2.49

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

105

14.57 ± 2.44

-0.120

94

15.05 ± 2.41

-0.408

0.160

-0.283

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.822

0.044

ismi_discrimation

2nd

105

11.38 ± 3.00

0.207

94

10.84 ± 2.95

0.433

0.204

0.271

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.62

125

10.62 ± 3.62

0.626

-0.124

sss_affective

2nd

105

10.10 ± 3.46

0.165

94

9.60 ± 3.36

0.564

0.304

0.276

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.043

sss_behavior

2nd

105

9.73 ± 3.55

0.241

94

9.25 ± 3.45

0.453

0.340

0.255

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.390

-0.219

sss_cognitive

2nd

105

8.47 ± 3.57

0.128

94

8.17 ± 3.47

0.511

0.541

0.164

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.45

125

29.84 ± 10.45

0.677

-0.118

sss

2nd

105

28.29 ± 9.91

0.214

94

27.07 ± 9.59

0.591

0.382

0.259

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(405.32) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(431.00) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(329.36) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(379.38) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.75)

ras_confidence

1st

t(307.16) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)

2st

t(353.84) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.88)

ras_willingness

1st

t(337.30) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(387.07) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.92)

ras_goal

1st

t(323.00) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(372.71) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.64)

ras_reliance

1st

t(306.99) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(353.62) = 1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.26)

ras_domination

1st

t(343.45) = -1.29, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(392.57) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.09)

symptom

1st

t(295.77) = -1.03, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)

2st

t(338.07) = -1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.15 to 1.00)

slof_work

1st

t(314.53) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(363.04) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.39)

slof_relationship

1st

t(308.88) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(356.06) = 1.41, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.61)

satisfaction

1st

t(302.41) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)

2st

t(347.50) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.37)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(303.31) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(348.72) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st

t(305.05) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(351.07) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.05)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(300.20) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(344.44) = 0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.95)

resilisnce

1st

t(323.69) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(373.46) = 2.14, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.41)

social_provision

1st

t(311.35) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(359.16) = 3.11, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.90)

els_value_living

1st

t(308.76) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(355.89) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.57)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(299.08) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(342.86) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.74)

els

1st

t(294.06) = 1.42, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(335.53) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.19)

social_connect

1st

t(299.74) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)

2st

t(343.79) = -2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.04 to -0.24)

shs_agency

1st

t(301.56) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(346.33) = 2.56, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.00)

shs_pathway

1st

t(311.58) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(359.45) = 2.40, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.37)

shs

1st

t(300.09) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(344.29) = 2.63, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.76 to 5.26)

esteem

1st

t(375.81) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(415.93) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.54)

mlq_search

1st

t(346.85) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(395.44) = 0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.96)

mlq_presence

1st

t(320.88) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(370.38) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.83)

mlq

1st

t(325.08) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(374.95) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.60)

empower

1st

t(310.18) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(357.69) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.87)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(358.75) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(404.68) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(344.17) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(393.18) = -1.27, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.88) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(348.14) = -1.03, p = 0.304, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.45)

sss_behavior

1st

t(303.36) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(348.79) = -0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.50)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(302.46) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(347.57) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.68)

sss

1st

t(291.30) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(331.33) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.51)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(229.33) = 1.49, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.48)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(214.57) = 3.30, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(210.17) = 4.31, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.98 to 2.62)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(216.11) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.70)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(213.33) = 3.30, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.40)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(210.14) = 3.12, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(217.29) = 4.09, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(207.82) = -2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(211.65) = 1.71, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.31)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(210.52) = 1.67, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(209.20) = 2.54, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.29 to 2.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(209.38) = 1.41, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(209.74) = 2.56, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.01)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(208.74) = 1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.88)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(213.47) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.48 to 1.89)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(211.02) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.78)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(210.49) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.13)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(208.51) = 2.25, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(207.47) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.97)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(208.65) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.40 to -0.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(209.02) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.64)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(211.06) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.45)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(208.72) = 2.99, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.98)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(223.45) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(217.93) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.61)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(212.91) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.54)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(213.74) = 1.49, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.98)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(210.78) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(220.20) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.18)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(217.42) = -3.05, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.30)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(209.30) = -3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.51)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(209.39) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.32)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(209.21) = -3.56, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.42)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(206.88) = -4.10, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.10 to -1.44)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(218.69) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(208.50) = -0.77, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.29)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(205.58) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(209.53) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.35)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(207.67) = 1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.95)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(205.55) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.79)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(210.32) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(204.03) = -1.97, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.49 to -0.00)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(206.56) = 1.25, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(205.81) = 1.14, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.28)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(204.94) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(205.06) = 1.74, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.95)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(205.29) = 1.63, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.52)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(204.64) = 2.39, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.05)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(207.76) = 2.02, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.36)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(206.13) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.34)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(205.79) = 1.44, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.78)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(204.49) = 1.52, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.76)

els

1st vs 2st

t(203.80) = 1.71, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.40)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(204.57) = -1.18, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.48)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(204.82) = 0.77, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.92)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(206.17) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.13)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(204.62) = 1.41, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.93)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(214.53) = -0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(210.76) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.26)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(207.39) = 1.88, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(207.94) = 2.33, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.35)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(205.98) = 2.42, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.43)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(212.30) = 0.89, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.66)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(210.41) = -1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.12)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(205.00) = -1.21, p = 0.459, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(205.06) = -1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(204.94) = -0.93, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.26)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(203.42) = -1.56, p = 0.239, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.26)

Plot

Clinical significance